RE: Cons and Facades

From: Chris Lofting (ddiamond@ozemail.com.au)
Date: Mon Jun 26 2000 - 16:45:58 BST

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Darwinism/ Lamarckism / Chris Lofting" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA19647 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:31:51 +0100
From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Cons and Facades
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:45:58 +1000
Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCICEAACHAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
In-Reply-To: <20000625230832.AAA17367@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.121]>
Importance: Normal
Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    Wade,

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    > Of Wade T.Smith
    > Sent: Monday, 26 June 2000 9:09
    > To: Memetics Discussion List
    > Subject: RE: Cons and Facades
    >
    >
    > Aaron Lynch made this comment not too long ago --
    >
    > >The idea of
    > >"engineered lies" may thus be seen as having a parasitic relationship to
    > >honest science.
    >
    > This, and all of your post, do explain a good portion of my reluctance to
    > accept what is being done in the memetic arena. As always, I truly enjoy
    > your encircling inquiries and comments.
    >
    > >Do you think there is a subcurrent in memetics that regards "memetic
    > >engineering" as including, among other things, a "new
    > technology" of lying?
    >
    > Yes, and I think anyone who doesn't, in their own subcurrent, regard
    > 'memetic engineering' as a new technology of lying is only fooling
    > themselves.
    >
    > As to how to conduct an experiment to control and analyze the
    > distribution of a 'meme' without first instigating a new meme, well, I'm
    > at a loss. The problem, as I see it, with 'engineering' a 'new' meme for
    > the purposes of experiment is that it is a lie to say one can create a
    > new meme, and since total context is, as in all evolution, a necessary
    > part of the experiment, narrowing the environment to construct a meme
    > creates a false culture.
    >
    > I would rather see memetic analysis of narrow cultures, than attempts to
    > 'engineer' memetic elements even for experimental purposes.
    >
    > As for using memetics to further and bolster behavior-altering techniques
    > such as NLP, well, that, to me, is just specious. Although, within the
    > narrow confines of the NLP culture, it may be an analytical technique to
    > explain why its proponents say it 'works', in much the same way
    > astrologers say astrology 'works'. I see only parallels of activity and
    > belief between the two.
    >

    For some obscure reason, you keep missing the point. I must be phrasing
    things incorrectly or perhaps you are not interested. Let me try again:

    BOTH astrology and NLP use dichotomisations in their determination of
    meaning and this process ENSURES the emergence of meaning.

    Behind all of our maps, our expressions, is a method which the species uses
    to determine meaning and make maps. Understand that process and you can see
    that Astrology etc etc are metaphors for describing objects and
    relationships and as such will elicit STRONG senses of 'truth', of belief.

    If you have time read my recent reply to Paul marsden on Darwin (heading
    delt with economics).

    Once you have read it, replace all references to evolutionary theory with
    Heidegger's work on Being and replace all reference to Darwin with dasein
    and Lamarck with mitzein and, in a very general way, you will find the same
    'vibe' as you do when reading Heidegger.

    Then do the same by replacing 'evolutionary theory' with 'The I Ching' and
    where you have Darwin put Yang and where you find Lemarck put Yin. In
    general you will find yourself reading about the I Ching.

    Then do the same process were:

    Evolutionary theory = Philosophy basics
    Darwin = Ontological
    Lamarck = Epistemological

    and

    Evolutionary theory = Mathematics

    Darwin = whole numbers, rational numbers
    Lamarck = irrational numbers, imaginary numbers.

    and

    Evolutionary theory = Astrology/Tarot etc etc
    Darwin = Heaven/fire
    Lamarck = Earth/water

    and

    Evolutionary theory = Quantum mechanics
    Darwin = particles (objects)
    Lamarck = waves (relationships)

    and

    Evolutionary theory = Relativity
    Darewin = general theory
    Lamarck = special theory (gravity etc)

    Evolutionary theory = Neurosciences
    Darwin = the what, who, which
    Lamarck = the where, when, how

    Evolutionary theory = Evolutionary theory Information Transmission
    Darwin = genetic
    Lamarck = memetic

    As you read ANY of these subjects, the words, although different in
    particular, point to invariant patterns of emotion at the general level. The
    ability to make analogies across the different disciplines is due to linking
    of the patterns of feeling behind the words. This process works across all
    scales.

    best,

    Chris.

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 16:32:44 BST